The Department of Homeland Security had directed the state to stop blocking the U.S. Border Patrol’s access to roughly 2½ miles of the U.S.-Mexico border

Texas is refusing to comply with a cease-and-desist letter from the Biden administration over actions by the state that have impeded U.S. Border Patrol agents from accessing part of the border with Mexico.

In a letter to the Department of Homeland Security, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton rejected the Biden administration’s request for the state to “cease and desist” its takeover of Shelby Park, an epicenter of southwest border illegal immigration in Eagle Pass.

“Because the facts and law side with Texas, the State will continue utilizing its constitutional authority to defend her territory, and I will continue defending those lawful efforts in court,” Paxton wrote.

  • stoly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    The National Guard is the “militia” that you hear about in the Constitution and such. Basically militias were brought up during the Revolutionary War and are what actually fought most of the battles. Those people wanted to ensure that militias would always be a thing so that in the future, oppression wouldn’t occur.

    In normal times, a governor is the head of a militia. But ultimately, the militias are part of the US military and always under the president. There are going to be laws and situations that Congress has spelled out over the years that say when this can or cannot happen, for how long it can last, etc.

    In brief: during an emergency, the president or governor calls up the reservists. Think natural disasters and such. When the emergency is over, they go back home and back to their normal jobs.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      This doesn’t seem the same though?

      In this case it’s the state national guard interfering with federal business. They themselves are the emergency.

      If he nationalizes them to resolve the situation (letting the border guard patrol the area) the moment he ends his control, Texas would just start up the interference again?

      Is the outcome that he nationalizes it, and they remain under his control until a federal court orders Texas to comply, at which point he returns control to Texas?

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        You’d surely have a court order by that point preventing it from happening again. Courts can bring in marshals I’d think.